Daniel Craig keeps talking about how much he hates inherited wealth

Britain's Prince Charles, Prince of Wales poses with British actor Daniel Craig as he tours the set of the 25th James Bond Film at Pinewood Studios in Iver Heath, west of London, on June 20, 2019. - The Prince of Wales, Patron, The British Film Institute

Did we ever find out the name or gender of Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz’s child? There were some vague whispers that the child is a girl, but they never announced anything, so I guess they’re really keeping that information on lockdown. Rachel and Daniel welcomed their kid in September 2018, so the child will be turning three years old soon. Daniel also has a 29-year-old daughter (Ella) from his first marriage, and I believe Ella lives in New York now? Rachel has a son, Henry, from her relationship with Darren Aronofsky. I bring this up because Daniel keeps talking about how he doesn’t want his kids to inherit any of his money. Last year, he told an outlet: “I think inheritance is quite distasteful. My philosophy is to get rid of it or give it away before you go.’ I don’t want to leave great sums to the next generation.” Well, he’s either saying the same thing or we’re just now getting the full quote about it:

Daniel Craig has revealed his children won’t inherit his vast fortune because he plans to ‘get rid of it’ before he dies. The James Bond star, 53, who has a net worth of around £116 million ($160 million), said he believes inheriting money is ‘distasteful’ and he is hoping to ‘give away’ most of his millions.

Speaking to Candis Magazine, Daniel said: ‘Isn’t there an old adage that if you die a rich person, you’ve failed? I think Andrew Carnegie [an American industrialist] gave away what in today’s money would be about 11 billion dollars, which shows how rich he was because I’ll bet he kept some of it, too. But I don’t want to leave great sums to the next generation. I think inheritance is quite distasteful. My philosophy is get rid of it or give it away before you go.’

Daniel welcomed his first child with wife Rachel in September 2018, and also has daughter Ella, 29, from his first marriage to Fiona.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah, we keep talking about this and obviously, rich people have very strong opinions about what money (if any) they’ll leave to their children. I wonder if Daniel feels the same way about leaving money to his wife? Like, what if he goes first? Does his will cut out not just his kids, but his widow too? And with the Weisz-Craig child – that kid is only three-years-old? Does Daniel’s will not leave any financial support for that minor child right now? All of this talk and he could just set up nice-sized trusts for his kids just in case and give the rest of his money away. Jeez.

Also: No Time To Die – Daniel’s final 007 film – will finally get released in October. Maybe. Probably.

Rachel Weisz, Daniel Craig

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Daniel Craig keeps talking about how much he hates inherited wealth”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. CROOKSNNANNIES says:

    It’s his money, his decision. I’ve seen what the promise of inheritance can do to people- and I’ve seen the way many people in my circle who have trust funds act. I don’t think it’s good for people as they grow up, and in my experience the people I grew up with who had trust funds were less inclined to work hard in school or pursue work. It makes me wonder what they would have been like if hundreds of thousands weren’t waiting for them.

    Easy for me to say though, because I was never in that position. I don’t have kids yet, but my and my husband’s goal is to get as far as we can to put future children through college without having to take out loans, which I know is a considerable feat. I think that would be an incredible gift if we can pull it off, and protecting them that way is more meaningful than leaving them money after we’re gone.

  2. Pocket Litter says:

    Financial support for a widow and/or a minor child /= inheritance.

  3. Red says:

    I agree with him. If I was rich, I’d put away money for my children to be able to pay off their schooling, but nothing for after that. I don’t care for how most people behave when they have an inheritance.

    • FilmTurtle says:

      I’ve always thought I’d set up a trust fund of something like $50,000 a year, which would provide a measure of financial stability but you can’t retire on it.

      • Ann says:

        I think that’s a good plan. That’s a safety net. You can give your kids an education and instill a work ethic, and they can still fall on hard times. What if one has a serious health problem, for example, that keeps them from earning a living, even if temporarily? What if a grandchild has special needs?

        I don’t believe in handing kids a bunch of money or promising wealth but I do think it’s OK to leave them something and help them if you can, in limited ways and on as as-needed basis.

    • Snuffles says:

      Same. I would put money aside for their housing and basic needs until their, say, 22 and their education but nothing beyond that.

  4. JillyBeann says:

    Yup pay for their school but treat yourself!!!

  5. MangoAngelesque says:

    Didn’t they slip and post a photo of a gingerbread house with all the family’s names on it, including the kids, and there was a “Grace” that was assumed to be the new daughter? Or was that debunked?

    • Jane says:

      Yes, it was on Ella’s Instagram. I think they announced that the baby was a girl but didn’t release her name, and then Ella’s Instagram pic with the name Grace alongside Ella and Henry has led people to believe that that is her name. And it fits with the names Ella and Henry and the couple’s general unflashy vibe.

  6. Serinekat says:

    I’m that kid. My father made a killing and he’s now in decline. The money has been a blessing and a curse to the family. It brings out the worst in people. While I get Craig’s point I think he’d do better to teach his kids about financial responsibility and how the money can help the community. I think many newly rich like my father worry about the kids becoming Kardashians or drug addicts.

  7. Arpeggi says:

    I think it’s a fair take. It’s also why inheritances should be heavily taxed over a certain amount; there’s no reason for you to be super rich just because your great-granddad was an oil tycoon or a slum lord.

    Those kids will already have had the privileges of a good education and great connections and some form of safety net but it’s their lives and for them to make something out of it. It’s perfectly ok not to be a millionaire, most of us aren’t and we manage to have fulfilling lives

  8. Wiglet Watcher says:

    Agree. It’s not common for a child of a self made wealthy parent to inherit massive wealth and not blow it or become an entitled mess. The only ones I can think of inherited their wealth as trust funds they had access to by age and not by a parent’s death. The parent was still around to watch and help manage.

  9. Premadonna says:

    I think being British, in the generation he grew up in, most Brit actors his age who gained a little fame would use it as an avenue to hanging out with “posh” people/aristos (often hoping to land an aristo in marriage), and which usually would evolve into kissing the queen’s arse publically and in the press (like Helen Mirren), hoping to get that OBE or damehood or knighthood or whatever.<– The ULTIMATE goal. That seemed to be the blueprint to posh-hood for non-posh actors. But once in a while, you get someone like Daniel Craig (I believe Ralph Fiennes is cut from the same cloth) who reject the British habit of worshipping inherited wealth altogether. God bless him. England needs more people like him to rip the rug out from under a society OBSESSED with class. Or as Ralph Fiennes called it, Britain’s “ghastly obsession with class.”

  10. lucy2 says:

    That’s what I would do as well, if I had millions. Set up the next generation have a cushion and live without having to struggle, provide a great education for them, etc, but beyond that, nope, give it away.
    There’s also nothing to say he has to wait until he passes to donate a lot – he’s very private so we won’t know, but I do hope he’s putting some of that money to good use now.

  11. Becks1 says:

    If I had the kind of money he had – 100 million is serious wealth to pass down – I don’t know what I would do. Its also different imagining what I would do if I died with younger children versus older children. Like if I’m Daniel Craig and I’m worth that much, my will is going to be full of provisions for that younger child – because if I die when she’s 10, I want her to have the same advantages her older siblings had, you know? But if I die when all of my children are 30 or 35 or older, my will is going to look very different, because by that point I’m going to assume that you are already well established, my wealth and name and connections have probably given you a huge leg up, and you know you’re not getting my hundred million so I’m assuming you planned your life accordingly. He’s 53, if he dies in 30 years his older daughter will be almost 60 and the younger one will be in her early 30s. I’m assuming he’s talking more about the scenario than something happening to him in the next few years.